guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Ariyen/Archive2
Nicholas the Traveler I love your changes. They clarify or add some humor to it, and don't diminish the usefulness of the page! --◄mendel► 14:55, January 10, 2011 (UTC) Kinds of fanfic You wrote on your userpage: What kind of Guild Wars fan fic is allowed? Can we write some of our own characters, etc.? -- We have no guidelines on this except for the desire to have fanfic; I wouldn't object to anything if it featured your own characters if it wasn't totally a Mary Sue piece. --◄mendel► 02:08, January 17, 2011 (UTC) :I think I'd do a sandbox type I'd say, in my userspace first. :-) Ariyen 08:27, January 17, 2011 (UTC) Guild Wiki Links Thanks for the heads up, I made the changes. -- [[User:Glamtre|''' Glamtre ]] ( ) 06:42, January 18, 2011 (UTC) Shortcuts You re-created the GW:BIRTHDAY shortcut. Within the context of this wiki, GW stands for GuildWars, and GuildWars:Birthdays makes no sense. I suggest dropping the prefix; making the shortcut all caps should ensure it gets recognized as such, so simply "BIRTHDAY". What do you think? --◄mendel► 15:30, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :sounds alright. I'll create that one and put the other up for deletin'. Ariyen 16:10, January 24, 2011 (UTC) ::Thank you! --◄mendel► 23:53, January 24, 2011 (UTC) rollback I wish I had rollback - would have been so much easier. -- actually no, there was another IP edit after those ALL HAILs, so rollback wouldn't have worked. --◄mendel► 14:27, February 15, 2011 (UTC) :Sadly, we seem to have vandals active - when most of the staff do not seem to be online. Ariyen 23:15, February 15, 2011 (UTC) Two edits I do not understand two of your edits: # On curid=180097&diff=1599965&oldid=1573777}} Wanted by the Shining Blade, you apparently substituted the infobox and removed the update notice - why? # On Template:Protected (and the BeastInfo doc), you removed the "pre" formatting - why? --◄mendel► 10:49, February 19, 2011 (UTC) :Over here it shows up with the pre as scrolling boxes. If one would try to copy, it would not work right. I've noticed that it's something messed up with their oasis, so just tried to fix it to show the code like one would see on monobook. As the pre or other - it would have the scroll bars. I find that very very.. annoying. :Removed the update notice? I didn't think I did that. Ooops. but I substituted teh infobox for different colors. Trying to get a different theme for it to help me change it more to fanfic like nicky :-P ::Warning: Do }} this once more, and I'm going to block you for GW:1RV violation. It is absolutely impossible to read your present formatting in Monobook now, and if you have a bug with pre and unneeded scrollbars, please provide information on your browser and perhaps a screenshot so it can be solved - on my Firefox 3.6, PRE sections do not scroll unless they are too wide, and these aren't. ::When you want to try out color schemes, please do not substitute the templates on mainspace pages; use a sandbox instead, either the public one or make one in your userspace, and you can copy the page there and subst: the template then. ::Please fix this. --◄mendel► 23:25, February 19, 2011 (UTC) :::Fine, I'll copy the preview mode I'm still in for that beastinfo and screenshot what I see in oasis. Since I can't get Monobook to work for me. We'll come to a "Middle" ground okay? Secondly, that color scheme was only for shining blade... Just pettition on the talk page if people like it like that or not. I'd like to see the template be able to do different colors for certain things, themes, areas, etc. :::Just I'll be doing all of this in a few days. Real life comes first and I've been leaving the pages up just for that.. Husband leaving monday to go to work out of town for a couple of months, which also means that I'll be dealing with a little clinging girl... -.- She's a bit of a daddy's girl. (I use Chrome with this stupid oasis theme... I want my mono (Not the disease!) book...Ariyen 07:23, February 20, 2011 (UTC) ::::Here is a version with pre tags for your screenshot. ::::You don't have to actually use monobook to realize that setting the background independent of the text color is a bad idea - it's happened so many places on this wiki when we changed themes. ::::The infobox colors used to be different for the type of page: locations had a different color than NPCs or items. If you redesign colors, you should think about the use of color everywhere on the wiki and not just consider one place. ::::The "template" does nothing once you have substituted it, since it is no longer "live" on the page. This is why I have asked you to use a sandbox page instead, and then you can use your blog or the community portal to ask whether people like it. ::::The middle ground is that we'll not forego the use of pre tags, since they're the easiest way to present wikicode, but rather make them work for your browser. --◄mendel► 10:56, February 20, 2011 (UTC) Your pre problem Information in tags is styled by Oasis with automatic scrollbars through the CSS property overflow:auto. Most browsers do not display scroll bars in this case when they are not needed, but your version of chrome does. The issue is mentioned here, and there's a lso a workaround that can be tried. Since this appears to be a problem with the Oasis skin on Chrome, I would ask you to bring this issue to the attention of Wikia via (you should probably log in for that), so that they may fix it. --◄mendel► 00:00, February 21, 2011 (UTC) Or might want to update your chrome to version 9, http://browsershots.org/screenshots/1981e79f7bf07929307c0f30086ed2b2 looks pretty much ok, it has some vertical scrollbars (that do nothing) but no horizontal ones, so it is pretty close to what Firefox displays. --◄mendel► 00:47, February 21, 2011 (UTC) Automatic categories I've removed all autocats from the navboxes that had them, and placed the pages that had the navboxes in the proper categories. Using AutoWikiBrowser (AWB), this took only 40 minutes for 158 edits. :) The next thing to consider would be infoboxes; which infoboxes have autocats? --◄mendel► 09:46, March 24, 2011 (UTC) :Any and all of them would have to be looked at, before determining what ones do autocats. I did see a few on guildwiki, but I can't recall what ones. I can do this, if you'd like. No troubles. Ariyen 22:52, March 24, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm already on it. Have a look at RC with bot edits on. ;-P --◄mendel► 23:10, March 24, 2011 (UTC) :::I'm now done with all the infoboxes I could find, except for the Template:Skill box . If you still see templates that do automatic categories, let me know. --◄mendel► 23:10, March 30, 2011 (UTC) :I see that and I'm jealous, sorta. Just ... now I'm l ike what can I do here? 08:41, March 25, 2011 (UTC) :*Sniffles* Well?... Ariyen 19:18, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Talking to newbs Tip: They're likely to not see edit summaries. If you want to leave a message to newbs that are not spam bots (a likely suspicion if they do not talk about anything Guild Wars related), best use their talkpage. (Oh, and talkingtonoobs.com seems to be offline right now, sadly.) --◄mendel► 07:49, March 31, 2011 (UTC) :Ok. Got a glitch with chrome atm. it keeps flashing... Ariyen 08:06, March 31, 2011 (UTC) new RfA process I want to try a different RfA process. We won't be using the old RfA pages, and I've created a blog page at User blog:Ariyen/Request for Adminship instead. I think you have to allow comments for that; the wiki didn't allow me to create the page in your space directly, and apparently the permission to comment got lost when I moved it. So please see if you can turn comments on for that blog page. If that doesn't work, I'll move the page back, and you can create it. Once that works, I'm going to put an announcement up on the site notice. --◄mendel► 12:29, May 7, 2011 (UTC) : Randomtime fixed it. --◄mendel► 12:46, May 7, 2011 (UTC) apologies I'm pretty tired, and I hadn't realized you were on irc, or I'd have talked to you before I closed your RfA. That was very rude of me, and I didn't intend to be. Sorry. --◄mendel► 23:16, May 15, 2011 (UTC) :It's Okay. Ariyen 01:32, May 16, 2011 (UTC) Talk pages are there for a reason I opened a discussion on the talk page, please comment there before reverting (again). There's like half a dozen editors left, if you want gw@wikia to go down in fights you're making a good attempt. Amy Awien 19:54, May 23, 2011 (UTC) Administrative assessment of the ongoing A-A conflict Some clarifications: * This is a wiki that anyone can edit, as long as it's on-topic and in good taste. Therefore, nobody needs my "permission" to edit the mainpage or any other page. * The wiki admins do not resolve editing disputes; that is the job of the editors. Admins are also editors, but obviously their opinion doesn't count for more than any other editor's in editing matters. * Wiki admins do resolve user disputes, and that is what is happening here, by upholding wiki policies and traditions. Some of these that are involved here are ** GuildWars Wikia:No personal attacks – that includes language like "blind", "troll", "vandal", "blown up ego" ** GuildWars Wikia:Only revert once – editing disputes should not be resolved by reverting back and forth until one side gives up. The moment it becomes clear that an issue is contentious, discuss it on the article talkpage until it is resolved. ** As a guideline, article talkpages are for resolving content issues, user talkpages are for resolving personal issues. ** Personal talkpages are an important vehicle for resolving personal disputes. For this to work, users must not revert other editor's attempts to bring up issues on their talk pages. ** GuildWars Wikia:Don't shout at each other! - while not a policy, it is generally a good idea not to post when upset. * In their recent conflict, both Ariyen and Amy Awien have at times disregarded some or all of these points. On the upside, * Amy Awien's initial attempts to address the issue, and some of the subsequent attempts to resolve the conflict, were well within the spirit of this wiki. * Ariyen undertook a lengthy, non-aggressive explanation of her thoughts and motives diff=1613697&oldid=1613693}} on Amy's talkpage. I am confident that you both can resolve this conflict in a mature way, without violating the aforementioned policies and traditions as you do so. If I find that you can't stick to them, I may block either of you to give you time to calm down and think. I am also restoring both of the deleted talkpage comments; there was nothing in them that warrants removal. I invite you to comment on this admin assessment on either your own userpage or mine, if you wish. --◄mendel► 23:36, May 23, 2011 (UTC) : Thing about it is, Instead of Amy reverting my revert. I think it would have been better to have actually looked at the content and seen that it was fiction and that it wasn't harmful. "There's like half a dozen editors left, if you want gw@wikia to go down in fights you're making a good attempt." - I don't appreciate this , in her attitude like she's trying to start a fight instead of resolving an issue of her's, which is the differences between the two words. Attitude was used to appeal more fictional, than attribute. As attribute felt more documentive and not very "fan fiction", that's why I didn't keep that word "visible". When I made my changes to the Main page, consulting you, Mendel, and others. My main goal was to make it a fan fictional, changing up the page to appear and show the changes that we were aiming for. I don't think we wanted to appear from main page that we're another documentive wiki, not when it was clearly going to become more of a fan fictional type wiki. I don't see anything wrong with the word attitude, nothing "trolling" or any such use about it. Also, on her message. she wrote that, before really attempting to wait on my response on main page talk, nor consulting the changes and really wondering the actual directions of the wiki. To me, there's no point in actually documenting this wiki quite as much as you would be competing against two other wikis and they all have more information. I would rather turn what can possibly be turned, into more of a fan fiction, but keeping the really needed things. : My issue is, her trying to start something that really didn't need to be started. Hence The "Are you blind?" : Also this, "As for 'theme, if fanfiction is the new path I suggest focussing the main page on the stories of the game," If she wants it to focus on stories, then it's clear that one misunderstands fan fiction, because fan fiction is not about focusing a wiki on certain parts in the game. Also calling fan fiction , which is part of the new face of the wiki , "random nonsense", is an attack on the wiki and any contributor whom has contributed fan fiction. Also, her "There is no theme, the page is like it was before." was clear that she did not attempt to check out the history of the changes as this would have proven her wrong. Her "There is not theme where that would fit in." would have been proven wrong by that link and she'd learned that I created a "theme" - a fan fictional twist to the main page to keep it from looking like guildwiki dot org. I don't appreciate her attitude in the first place. I know she may mean well, but when you edit with a harsh attitude like "There is not theme where that would fit in." - shows me that one is not paying attention to the actual page and how "fictional" it is. It's not clear, but it's not like guildwiki and others and can be obvious enough by the page look and fictional information that it's not completely a documentive wiki either. The fanfic should have been clear enough of a give away that it's not like it once was, when she joined in 07. : Reasoning with me? She didn't try. I'm not going to try to reason with someone, who clearly does not understand fan ficiton, wants to claim that the edits I made (changing up pages to be more "fictional") are trolling and vandalism pages (vandalizing the main page) in so many words... I don't appreciate those cold cuts. : Like saying if "random nonsense like this will put off anyone who happens to drfit near this wikia" ... Uh, no. We've had people to edit a few pages, especially the fictional , some helped with the traveler adding in their fictional inputs, which I enjoyed. I've had some comment to me on my changes on guild wiki, in game, etc. enjoying my changes that I have made to the traveler, etc. Mostly the traveler. I don't think the visitors would change that much due to our changes. I think the majority have left due to wikia and Oasis. If anything, I think we'd have visitors who'd visit to see our changes, maybe make suggestions or help add fiction, as we have had in the past with the main page having changed, only few wanted it like guildwiki, because they don't understand or respect fan fiction in my opinion. : With all due respect, I hope she'll appologize to me for her own flat out "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude that was nothing, but harsh and very disrespectful. It was hurtful and disrespectful her removing things calling them vandalisms, when if she'd wake up and looked at the history, paid attention and read up on the changes and other things. She'd seen that if I was doing vandalism, I'd been reverted by others like you, besides her. She'd seen that hey there's changes, which she questioned on your talk, but seemingly to ignore you and insulted me on your talk page even more, not paying attention to a word anyone has said on her talk page or any other page. I only became disrespectful, when I felt that one wasn't being very open minded and was already disrespectful with the style of writing. : Thing is, if one wanted to have a "civil" discussion, it only needed to be on the main page talk. Not brought to mine, in which I detailed what my intentions were that didn't need to be explained if someone knew better about fan fiction and that it's not about the story site of a game , etc. on her talk. Which was more "broad" and general of the whole wiki, instead of just the main page talk. I researched to learn she didn't seemly understand quite well as to what was going on here. Tried to explain to be met with confusion and hostility. it was clear she didn't read all of what I wrote, nor read the notes above the new that I had started. If she had, I don't think things would have been questioned as much or she'd written responses that could show her trying to understand things better and a resolution would have resolved. As of now, I don't think she could work with me in this manor nor I with her. I feel the Main Page should stay as it is to reflect the fan fiction that it has, not for Attitude to be changed back to attribute of which is used on guildwiki. Ariyen 01:43, May 24, 2011 (UTC) :: You are keeping on attacking Amy Awien. I thought I had made it clear that this is not ok. Amy started a discussion about how she thinks the mainpage ought to look on the Talk:Main Page, and you responded to it with an attack because she sees things differently than you do, rather than explaining your own view and trying to understand hers. You have again attacked her now, stating unsupported assumptions that tend to reflect badly on her (= "badmouthing"). I suggest that you either stop posting on this to calm down, or stop talking about Amy and instead reflect on what you want, why you think what you do, what you don't understand about Amy and what you need to ask her. If you keep on talking about her instead of to her, if you cannot be civil and considerate and ask about what you don't understand instead of attacking it, you are going to be blocked with no further warning. --◄mendel► 02:22, May 24, 2011 (UTC) ::: I'm just saying that things have changed and her reverting to the "old way" instead of understanding and accepting the new... is in poor taste in it's self. I have quoted things that she's said that shouldn't have happened. Things that were done in poor taste. the writing style, the hostility. I'm not trying to attack her at all, but I"m just pointing out why it won't be settled. I have nothing to say or ask her, except why she wants the "old way" that has moved on to guildwiki dot org. Why she wants to claim my work as vandalism and me as a troll. When it's clear of the opposite. If I was such, as I have stated above, I'd been reverted by you, Randomtime, Jon, etc. I'm pointing out her negatives and I want to understand why she's acting like that. I'm not posting on her talk page, because "Removed wall of text from troll, you've had you chance, now begone" she only thinks of me as a troll, instead of a civil editor doing fan fiction on this wiki as this wiki is a fanfic wiki. It's not based off storys from the wiki, it's based on our own opinons of characters, etc. I have explained above again about the attitude and attribute. Attribute is a guildwiki stype writing, attitude is part of the new fan fiction that I had done, that I have linked to. Read my wot above again and I hope you can see what I've summarized here. Only reason I removed her comment from my talk, was because of the "attempt" of a "fight' aka attack. I don't '''retaliate. I do show proof by quotes, which were obviously ignored. Some were actually quoted, others done using " that as quotes. As the green is hard to read on a black background. I have shown you links and links to proove the differences and changes between the original main page that's on guildwiki.Ariyen 05:58, May 24, 2011 (UTC) :::: "things that she's said that shouldn't have happened" -- may I point out that you overstepped every single one of the guidelines I explained above? Instead of thinking how Amy did something she ought not to have, please think about how you did that. You did start the namecalling and the hostility, calling her "blind" in your 19:40 edit summary and the subsequent mainpage edits, and calling her a "trolling vandal" in your 19:57 revert of her message on your talk, to name the most egregious example. I can empathise with Amy getting a bit pissed at you at this point, tbh (getting one's talkpage message reverted usually does that - you were the first to do that, by the way, insult inclusive, so I do not see why you complain about Amy copying you on that). So now it stands that you both said things you shouldn't have said, so you either drop this issue and try to focus on working on the mainpage, or be the first to apologize. I warned you both, so you weren't treated unfairly; and since I warned Amy about this as well, there is no need to point out (or "prove") to me what she did - I've seen it, and she was warned. As were you. (If you want a more detailed assessment, I have a handy timeline I can post.) :::: To repeat myself re: the mainpage, the place to discuss the mainpage is its talkpage - not my userpage, or yours, or Amy's. If you hadn't mixed so many attacks in with your "kung fu" reply on the main page talk, you might have kept the discussion going. :::: To repeat myself (2): Your 5:58 post above is you doing exactly that. You are hereby blocked for 24 hours. If you want to keep talking about Amy, take it to email, or your block will be lengthened; I cannot see that it would do much good, however. Please reread and think about what I wrote previously. --◄mendel► 08:00, May 24, 2011 (UTC) talk archive delete tag I am not going to delete your talk archive. It contains a history of your interactions with other members of this wiki, and keeping this available is one factor in keeping your future interactions presentable; it also helps others assess you better, and get along with you better. I do delete talkpages and archives under the "too old to matter" clause for old userpages etc., but you're not 2 years inactive, so that doesn't apply. --◄mendel► 02:05, May 24, 2011 (UTC) Talk deletion The same argument as in the previous section applies to your removal of the text on your talkpage and your talkpage archive. Please restore the link to User talk:Ariyen/Archive1, too. --◄mendel► 08:48, May 29, 2011 (UTC) Image deletion requests I deleted one of the images you requested to have deleted (I must have overlooked that back in January; please accept my apologies); I'm not going to delete the other one because it is used on the Featured Community Member page. --◄mendel► 09:43, May 29, 2011 (UTC)